Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock

If you are asking a question, I can only assume you are doing it through some kind of remote thought channeling. So I have projected an answer back to you.

Why yes I do Blue Jay. Not one of them has anything close to the type of facial hair humans have. I can't even see a hint of a moustache in fact. Certainly not compared to what a human looks like if they haven't shaved for 15 years. You need to get out more. There are entire countries with big beefy woman and big fat noses.Or maybe you were just trying to point out to me the obvious contradiction that even though it would seem men prefer dainty woman with small noses, woman exist in all sizes roughly the same anyway, so natural selection doesn't work?You are finally starting to get it! I knew one day you would see the light. Congratulations!

I started to read a little about your sexual selection thesis. Here is my favorite part: Funny stuff. But now, despite your parody on your lack of brevity. I can't see anywhere (despite wearing out my scrolling finger) that you have ever tried to actually describe how it would work in detail.Like, first you have this population with all bearded faces-Next, you get one individual with a mutation that makes their face look hairless.-She is female, and she is so popular amongst the guys because she looks like a sexy child, or someone with alopecia.-She passes on the facial alopecia to her children, and they are also popular, and suddenly the male apes say "once you have tried skin, the bearded ones can't win."
{note} She also passed on the alopecia faces to her male kids but they all died because apparently woman hate strange looking mutants less than men do.-This goes on for one million years, male apes looking for mutant childlike apes, woman ignoring mutant male child like apes.-The mutant childlike alopecia faced males apes all form a union and move to Asia.-Finally the selection process is almost complete. Now the woman start choosing men who don't have big floppy chests, and the men choose woman who do. Wait another million years.-Now the woman start selecting men whose hair falls out when they turn 40. Actually they choose men who they think will have their hair fall out when they turn 40, but the men never choose these kind of woman-fortunately for us!-Wait another million years, forget about the face thing, now woman start selecting men who can sing, and men select ones who either can or can not sing, but who have fat hips, but still look child-like.AND THIS is how the book, 'Women are From Venus, Men are From Mars' came into being!!!

Ok Blue Jay, so you are claiming that chimpanzee females have mustaches and beards. So do you believe that the male chimpanzees tend to have sex with females who have less beards? Do you think the ones who have these mustaches that you see are at a real disadvantage in their population?I feel you also selectively ignored the further points of my post-like for instance that if males selected child-like traits that that would contradict men liking wide hips and large breasts. And thus this is how science is these days in the realm of evolution-they ignore what they don't want to see, just as Arriba has suggested.

Ha, yea right, some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them! I guess you meant the other 99.86 posters here.

Are you still feeling hurt because you can't reconcile why men would like woman with big breasts if they seek child- like woman?Or perhaps it's because you were unaware that there are entire nations of women with big fat noses ?In case you hadn't noticed the OP is about bad science bias, and traits that are not likely to be useful in the survival quest. Sorry if that's too hard for you to grasp.

Female chimpanzees have beards in about the same way that Richard Nixon had a sense of humor. To claim that they have beards in any way close to what male humans have is just downright funny. Quit monkeying around.But there is obviously a larger point. Traits in your world come about by accident and then spread simply as a result of better survival. So when we talk about traits like beards, we must find a reason that they would make better survival, if your theory is to make sense. So you can try to think of reasons why they would give any significant advantage,but it should make sense. The sense that RAZD says it makes,is that if a female doesn't have a beard she would look adolescent like, as if looking adolescent like would help one to get mates easier. Not only does this not happen in the ape world-that adolescent looking apes mate easier, but it doesn't even happen in the human world-as why should it.You situation becomes even trickier when you start creating stories,which even CONTRADICT earlier stories you created to explain breasts and hips.But then your situation becomes absolutely nonsensical when you start claiming that traits like a peacocks tail are advantageous just because they are descibed as being advantageous...i.e. They look good and therefore they must be. Or that they are so hard to live with, that one must be healthy to survive with it-because its such a burden. Like if a man was born with a 200 pound lump on his back. If he could still survive with that,he must be very very healthy to carry that around all day.I mean, Dr. A even went so far as to just say, woman without beards look good, so of course they mate easier. That you must admit is just patently stupid, in the context of your theory. Why would something be described and thought of as looking good? Even you must admit that is dumb, right?Now you have a tail, which makes it harder to fly, which makes you slower, and more susceptible to being eaten, and yet somehow you have to be able to also describe this in a way that makes sense as an advantge. So your side is left bumbling with the notion that, well, they survived,so see that proves it must be.Well, no it doesn't, because there is another option. And that is that traits exist that natural selection would never favor. Like hair and beards down to the floor. Life is not describable in a survival only paradign. Life is chock full of wonders which are cool,but which would never make the difference between life and death. Like an eyebrow. Its convenient, but its not going to insure your survival. Or a beard on a chimpanzee, because frankly chimpanzees don't give a **** who they ****... just like all other animals, they just aren't that choosey.You don't only have an entire closet full of traits that you would have to rationalize to make your theory make sense,you have an entire planets worth of traits that need rationalizing. And when you rationalize them long enough, all the reasons you give start to contradict each other.And so what does science do,because they already know theirtheory has to be right, they have already bet the house on it. Well,they just throw out the results which don't help them.or they just make up new stories and hope that everyone forgot the last story-just like RAZD has done. of course we want fully developed woman,er I mean adolescent woman. Of course we want the birds which fly fastest,er,I mean which are the most beautiful. Why are parrots beautiful, well,because look at them, they have survived! Don't you think they look good. Oh no wait, that's only for the male birds,because females care about looks most. No,sorry, that's wrong too,females want providers,males want the looks,thats why....Wait, can I start again from the beginning.If you can take any trait you want,and call it a survival advantge just because you need to,that is not much of a theory. And its not gish gallop either, just because you say it is.